K.T. Sankaran, J.

Aggrieved by the order in I.P. No. 1 of 2007, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Koyilandy, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the District Court, Kozhikode. The appeal was filed as C.M.A., i.e., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The District Court passed an order dated 10.3.2011 which reads as follows :

"Heard the appellant. This is an appeal filed under Section 79 of the Insolvency Act. But it is filed as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Section 75 of the Insolvency Act deals with the filing of appeal. Since the order appealed against is being a final order the appellant ought to have filed an appeal as provided under Order 41 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code or under Order 44 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. But instead of filing a regular appeal, the appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. As the order appealed against is not an interlocutory order or an order specified in Order 43 Rule 1, I am of the view that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. So return the appeal memorandum to the appellant for preferring a regular appeal instead of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal."

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Court. The prayer in this Original Petition is to set a side the order dated 10.3.2011 and to direct the District Court to accept the appeal as C.M.A.

3. Section 79 of the Insolvency Act, 1955 (Act 2 of1956) provides for appeals. Section 79(1), which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows:

"79. Appeals : (1) The debtor, any creditor, the receiver of any other person aggrieved by a decision come into or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court may appeal to the District Court and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final :

Provided that the High Court, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect there to as it thinks fit:

Provided further that any such person aggrieved by a decision of the District Court on appeal from a decision of a subordinate Court under Section 4 may appeal to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908."

Sub Section (1) only says that an appeal lies to the District Court. The second proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 79 provides for a Second Appeal to the High Court against the decision of the appellate court on any of the grounds mentioned in Sub Section (1) of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. The question to be considered is whether the appeal before the District Court is to be numbered as C.M.A. or whether it should be numbered as A.S.

4. As a Second Appeal is provided to the High Court from the decision of the District Court, necessarily it should be in accordance with the nomenclature prescribed for filing a Second Appeal. With effect from 21.5.2003, the new categorisation and nomenclature of cases was accepted in the High Court of (Kerala), based on the resolution of the Chief Justice's Conference 1997. As per the new categorisation and nomenclature of cases, the Second Appeals from judgments in Miscellaneous Cases will be numbered as M.S.A. i.e., Miscellaneous Second Appeal. It is pointed out that appeals under special statutes are being numbered as C.M.A.s in the subordinate courts and when Second Appeals are filed, they are being filed as Miscellaneous Second Appeals. A Second Appeal under Section 79 of the Insolvency Act filed in the High Court is being numbered as M.S.A.

5. Appeals filed against orders are being numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in the subordinate courts. In the High Court, after the new categorisation and nomenclature, appeals against orders are being numbered as F.A.O.s. (First Appeal from Order).

6. Appeals to the District Court under Section 7